Vol. 687 No. 3
1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the estimated staff costs to his Department since May 2008 associated with supports and liaison provided to the Independent Members of Dáil Éireann who support the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24673/09]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the level of support provided by his Department to Independent Deputies who have committed to support the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26209/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The support and liaison arrangements in place for the Independent Members of Dáil Éireann who support the Government continue as before. They operate in the context of the political agreements with these Deputies, which are confidential and based on the programme for Government, which incorporates the national development plan, approved Government programmes and annual estimates for capital and current expenditure.
The only staff costs associated with the provision of this support are of an assistant principal in my Department who assists the Government Chief Whip in liaising with these Deputies. As has been the practice for over 11 years, this official meets with the Deputies on a regular basis and arranges to keep them briefed on issues as they arise.
I accept that it is practical politics to enter into arrangements with people who wish to support the Government. However, we do not live in a secret society and nor should that be the case. In the midst of a national crisis and a recession, secret deals — which were hammered out between the Government and several Independent Deputies — still exist and no one can obtain details relating to them, either through freedom of information requests or by some other means. We were originally informed that the deals concluded with three Independents in June 2007 were worth millions of euro to various constituencies. I can neither confirm nor deny whether that is the case because I do not know the position. The relevant information will not be provided, unless it is in the form of visible evidence of corners of pages containing the signature of the Taoiseach's predecessor.
In light of the current national crisis and the fact that we all have ideas about how best to get the economy moving again and get people back to work, is the Taoiseach of the view that, for good or ill, it would be appropriate that details of the arrangements be published? Is there any truth in reports which emerged in recent days to the effect that at least two of the Independent Deputies involved have indicated that some shaving has been carried out in respect of the financial arrangements and that some of the matters that were listed as priorities have now been removed? Will the Taoiseach confirm whether that is the position? Furthermore, will he indicate whether these Independent Deputies are part of the review he is obliged to conduct with the Green Party, the Members of which are absent from the Chamber, which is holding a meeting on 18 July to decide on its priorities?
As the Deputy has been aware for some time, agreements entered into by my predecessor with a number of Deputies are political in nature and details relating to them are not covered by parliamentary questions. These agreements are confidential but, as has always been the case, they are based on the programme for Government, which incorporates the national development plan, approved Government programmes and annual Estimates for capital and current expenditure. For some time, that has been the established position with regard to agreements with Independent Deputies.
It is open to people to continue to make representations in respect of a range of issues and we continue to be of assistance to Deputies who support the Government regarding matters they raise. Those Deputies entered into political agreements with my predecessor and, as stated on previous occasions, I intend to honour these.
I cannot comment on any speculation the Deputy may have read in respect of this matter. The issues to which I refer are dealt with on an ongoing basis with the Deputies involved on a bona fide basis.
I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that the exercise of government is one of openness and transparency and that matters should be seen to be absolutely above board. I have no doubt but that this is his conviction. However, the arrangements to which I refer are secret deals involving the Government and two or three Independent Deputies. The details relating to these arrangements are confidential and, therefore, cannot be made known to the House or to the remainder of the country.
An assistant principal officer has been appointed to deal with this matter. I do not know how much time that individual allocates to deal with the whims and concerns of the Independent Deputies involved. How many hours per week does this official devote each week to dealing with Deputies Healy-Rae and Lowry? How much time was allocated in respect of the concerns of Deputy Finian McGrath when he still had a deal with the Government?
I am long gone out of it.
Is there evidence with regard to the amount of time committed, on behalf of the taxpayer, in respect of dealing with the concerns and issues raised by the relevant Independent Deputies?
At a time when efficiency in the public services is critically important, someone who is probably an experienced assistant principal officer is obliged to spend time each week discussing with Independent Deputies confidential arrangements they have in respect of the provision of bridges, roads or developments in their constituencies and assuring them that these projects retain the priority afforded to them under the programme for Government. That programme is in tatters because, as the Taoiseach has pointed out on numerous occasions, it was predicated on a growth rate of 4.5% and such a rate has not been maintained. The entire programme is off the rails and that is why a review, during which Fianna Fáil and the Green Party will decide on what are their priorities, is taking place.
For instance, am I to take it that the confidential arrangements with Deputies Healy-Rae and Lowry will be maintained in their original form or are they to be slimmed down? Is the aforementioned assistant principal officer to be given a new role requiring the devotion of less time to the concerns of these Deputies and more time to providing part of the efficiency of Government? Can the Taoiseach confirm these lists costing millions, as Members have been told, will be scaled back in view of the perilous state of the economy and the difficulties everyone is experiencing at present? Secret deals have been made in this House about which Deputy Burton often has asked and about which she cannot be given any information. Speaking as a public representative, it is neither here nor there whether it is the improvement of a stretch of road, the removal of a bad corner or whatever is included in these deals. However, at a time when people demand openness, transparency and accountability, the Taoiseach sits on the Government benches while an assistant principal officer in his Department allocates time, and consequently money, to dealing with the whims of a number of Independent Deputies who support the Government when they walk through the lobbies and yet no one can find out what these agreements are about.
I know this issue is a matter of some frustration to the Deputy, who raises it every week. However, these are confidential political agreements that are in place. As I noted, they exist within the context of the programme for Government, which in turn is in the context of the availability of resources. All these issues must be dealt with on the basis of established priorities and the manner in which one can accommodate issues as they arise. This requires continuing liaison with those Deputies who support the Government. The assistant principal officer, who is attached to the Chief Whip's office, obviously is available to the Chief Whip in respect of duties there as well. It is a question of having in place a system in which people who support the Government have an opportunity to interface with Departments and to convey their views on various matters and this is part of the job of managing the Government.
Moreover, all the commitments made in the programme for Government are predicated on the availability of resources and the need to accommodate priorities as we go along. As Deputy Kenny observed, I have stated that it was predicated on growth rates of 4.5% and that progress is being made in many areas of the programme. In any event, all commitments within the programme are predicated on that financial provision which is the centre piece of any programme for Government, namely, on the availability of resources and the maintenance of strong public finances.
I refer to the case, back in the 1980s, of a Fine Gael Minister of State who had a particular policy he wished to pursue. He approached the Taoiseach himself, only to be told that unfortunately, no money was available. Has the aforementioned assistant principal officer ever been instructed to tell either Deputy Healy-Rae or Deputy Lowry, in respect of a particular item, that no money is available and that the item in question will drop off the end of the list? Finally, do such agreements extend to Deputy Behan, who has left Fianna Fáil and who now also is an Independent Member?
As I have stated to the Deputy, in liaising, public servants obviously will pass on whatever information or views are expressed at interface with Ministers and Departments in the normal way. Ministers are the people who make the ultimate decisions in respect of expenditure. That is the normal provision and there is no need to involve public servants in that process, apart from doing their job in the normal course of events. As I noted, the agreement relates to those Deputies who support the Government and it has been open to Independent Deputies to so do. Deputy Kenny is aware that Deputy Finian McGrath no longer seeks to support the Government on the basis of that agreement, which is fair enough. That is the political reality with which we must deal. However, there has been no change in respect of the Deputies who had prior agreements with us.
My understanding is that in recent months, an bord snip nua has been looking at expenditure headings in all Departments. As the Taoiseach himself acknowledged, the gross cost of the attached assistant principal officer's salary, pension entitlements and so on probably is approximately €100,000 per annum. Even if that person devoted only 20% of his or her time to looking after the two Independent Members, one still comes out with a cost of approximately €20,000 simply to massage the Independent Members and ensure they get the news out first, even before the Government Deputies. Has the cost of the deal and the cost of servicing the deal been examined by an bord snip nua or otherwise? We hear that all sorts of vital areas of expenditure, some 400 areas, have been offered for review, cut back or abolition. There is no case in a parliamentary democracy for the basis of a programme for Government being held in part in secret. Is the expenditure involved in dealing with Independent Deputies subject to examination by an bord snip nua?
The Taoiseach referred to the cost of the civil servant. Three of the Deputies indicated that the value of the deal to their constituencies amounts to many tens of millions of euro. Deputy Finian McGrath claimed to have a commitment from Government on cystic fibrosis. This was included in the cost of his deal. Two of the Deputies who were subject to the deal have gone because Deputy Flynn has rejoined Fianna Fáil and Deputy Finian McGrath is no longer party to the deal.
In these changed financial circumstances we have an expensive administrative superstructure. Has Mr. Colm McCarthy's group examined this? What is the value of the deal for each of the remaining Deputies who support the Government? The Green Party has stated, and the Taoiseach has acknowledged, that there will be a review of the programme for Government. Will this review take into account the Independent Deputies? Will it involve one-on-one negotiations with the Taoiseach, the Chief Whip or the assistant principal assigned to look after them?
It is important that people do not involve the assistant principal, who is simply a liaison officer who deals with queries from Independent Deputies and passes them on to Departments. There is no need to involve him in political discussions or suggest he is involved in this. That is not his role.
With regard to the liaison that takes place for Deputies who support the Government, per head of Dáil Members it is far less than the cost involved when we set up programme offices, programme managers and the office of the Tánaiste when the Labour Party came into office. Per head of population that was a far more expensive support arrangement than what currently exists, which is quite frugal in comparison.
One need not make a mountain out of a molehill. People supporting the Government have a liaison arrangement with the Office of the Chief Whip. The person involved is an assistant principal and liaises with the Deputies on an ongoing basis, as the Deputies require. This is part of the management of Government to ensure we have a majority in the House to implement the programme for Government.
The political agreements they have are subject to the same constraints as other spending programmes. The committee reviewing public service numbers and programmes has examined all spending programmes. Priorities are established, decided on and implemented by the Government. That will apply to these matters as well. These questions provide opportunities for Deputies to suggest something other than what is the case. I have outlined the basic arrangement and it makes clear political sense.
I thank the Taoiseach for the reply but it does not get us much further. If we are in a life and death situation as an economy, with all expenditure being reviewed as to whether it is absolutely critical and essential, the allocation of an assistant principal in whole or in part to mind two Independent Deputies is difficult for many ordinary people to justify when it is compared to the cutbacks that schools will experience in September. I would not have quibbled if the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance had employed an adviser or two to keep an eye on the banks because we might not be in the mess we are if, during his stewardship of the Department of Finance——
The Deputy must ask a question and not impart information.
——he had made arrangements——
It is not a time for that; it is a time for a question.
——to be adequately and appropriately advised on how to look after the economy.
The Deputy must ask a question if she wishes to do so.
The question I asked was whether the remit of the McCarthy committee was general to all headings of public expenditure and whether it included the operation of the arrangements with the Independents and their minding by an assistant principal officer.
I did not give any specific terms of reference in respect of this and neither did the Government. The Government asked that all spending programmes be reviewed. Obviously, the issue of public service numbers is being reviewed and examined departmentally. The point returns to the basic issue. This is a political arrangement the Government has undertaken with those who support it on the Independent benches in the interests of ensuring that we accommodate views where possible, listen to their priorities and see in what way their issues can be advanced. Many of these issues are of concern to all those who represent these constituencies. There is nothing unusual about this and it is important from our point of view to accommodate in that respect, rather than not having any liaison arrangements whatever, in an effort to show our bona fides towards the issues they would raise on the basis that they are supporting the Government. It is an arrangement that is totally defensible in that context.
3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions since 4 June 2009 with the First and Deputy First Minister and with the British Prime Minister regarding the ongoing implementation of the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24767/09]
4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25733/09]
5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25734/09]
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27135/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.
My most recent contacts with the British Prime Minister were on the Lisbon treaty and discussions which took place at the recent European Council meeting on which I have already reported to the House.
I last met with the Northern Ireland political parties at the eighth plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council which took place yesterday at Farmleigh House in the Phoenix Park. The meeting was attended by the First Minister, Peter Robinson, and Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, as well as a range of Government Ministers and Ministers from the Executive.
At the meeting we had positive and constructive exchanges across the full range of agenda items. We had a broad discussion of the economic challenges facing the island and our respective responses to dealing with the downturn and its impact, particularly on the banking sectors in both jurisdictions. We outlined our Government's intention to establish a National Asset Management Agency and it was agreed that there would be an early meeting of the two Finance Ministers to discuss those issues.
The council noted the contribution of continuing practical and mutually beneficial North-South co-operation to assisting both Administrations in their efforts to promote growth and employment; the contribution that the all-island economy can make and how we can work together to provide better and more efficient public services North and South.
We noted progress on the A5 and A8 roads projects and agreed procedures governing payment of the Irish Government contribution. In accordance with this, payment of €9 million will be made by the Minister for Transport to the Northern Ireland consolidated fund before the end of 2009.
The council also confirmed its intention to conclude the St. Andrew's review process before the end of 2009 and it instructed the review group to accelerate its work on all the elements of the review and to provide a final report at the next meeting of the plenary session. In addition, the meeting welcomed recent North-South co-operation on matters such as the swine flu outbreak and cross-Border arrangements for the removal of illegally dumped waste.
Overall, there have been some positive developments in Northern Ireland. I believe that the time is right to complete the process of the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Executive. I am encouraged by the comments of the First Minister that discussions on the financial arrangements to allow this are making progress.
I would also like to welcome the recent announcements made by the loyalist organisations on decommissioning. Both Governments have always been firm in our demand that all weapons on all sides should be decommissioned. We also welcome the moves that the loyalist organisations have been making in recent years to move on.
Has the Taoiseach taken the opportunity to address, with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the British Prime Minister, the importance of moving on with the proposal to move policing and justice powers from London to Belfast? Does he agree this is long overdue and is essential as an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement and all that was promised therein? Does he also agree that for the new dispensation to function in the North, we need to see a new beginning to policing and justice? Therefore, will the Taoiseach undertake to renew his efforts to encourage all concerned to move quickly to put policing and justice firmly in place in Belfast?
I note from various print media this morning the progress reported from yesterday's all-Ireland ministerial council meeting with regard to a number of projects. I have questions with regard to a number of those projects — outworkings of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement — including the A5 which joins up with the N2 on this side of the Border and which will complete the Dublin-Derry-Donegal connections. The Taoiseach stated that confirmation of the expected routes would be announced shortly. Can he be more specific as to when we will have the detail? When does he expect this will be announced?
With regard to two further elements to which reference was made, was there any progress on the Ulster canal project? Can the Taoiseach give us an indication of the current status and the intention of both Administrations for this flagship project which is of tremendous importance and which has the potential to bring about significant economic rejuvenation of the Border counties, North and South? Also, with regard to the Government's withdrawal of funding from the all-Ireland autism centre for excellence at Middletown in County Armagh, a joint North-South project, is there any change in the Government's position with regard to the indication by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, of a withdrawal of funding already committed for the development of that centre this year? Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Government will restore its joint commitment to the development of that important project for children with autism on this island?
On policing, I understand the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will have a further meeting next week with the British Prime Minister on the matter. There are financial arrangements and implications with regard to the decision and it is necessary to address those issues as part of the process that has been agreed for the transfer of devolved powers of policing and justice to Northern Ireland as soon as possible. There is significant work going on in that respect. It is important the issue is dealt with in that context as that is where the issue stands currently. We support and encourage a speedy resolution of these issues so that matters can move on more quickly towards the ultimate objective agreed by all, namely, that there should be devolved powers of policing and justice to Northern Ireland. This important part of the process needs to be completed as soon as possible in the interest of stability and wider ownership by everybody of the process itself.
On the question of the A5, we have seen agreement on preferred routes recently and there has been significant work done between the roads authority in Northern Ireland and the National Roads Authority here. I understand both sides are happy with the level of progress that has been made by their respective roads authorities on the issue. We are ready to move to the next stage soon. I understand the Minister for Transport and his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive will meet to discuss the rate of progress shortly, as soon as the next arrangements are made for a meeting. On both sides, happiness was expressed at the progress that has been made in regard to that major project.
With regard to the Ulster Canal, the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, has made arrangements for a meeting with his new counterpart, Mr. McCausland, in a matter of weeks, at which that issue will continue to be discussed to see whether it can be progressed. I have not got the up-to-date position on the Middletown situation but I will have the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, convey it to the Deputy.
I thank the Taoiseach for his responses. In regard to the A5-N2, there remains an amount of confusion in regard to the intentions concerning the development on this side of the Border — that element within County Monaghan from Clontibret to the Border at or near Aughnacloy. In the absence of the Taoiseach's ability to answer the question directly today, is it possible he would ask that clarification be forwarded to me? There is great concern that this will not be an A5-N2 but an A5 only, which would be a mistake with serious consequences. We definitely need to see that joined up and properly considered.
With regard to the earlier questions on the Middletown project, while I welcome that the Taoiseach will have an update transmitted to me, there is a tremendous concern among families and the organisations which represent families with children on the autism spectrum as to the Government's intentions vis-à-vis this project. This was jointly announced by the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Michael Woods, and the then Minister for Education, Mr. Martin McGuinness. Can the Taoiseach give an indication that he is working towards restoring the commitment that existed up to recently and that the proposed development at that site in the current year can proceed unhindered and without delay?
I note discussions are to be held between the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the newly appointed Minister north of the Border, Mr. Sammy Wilson, on the implications of NAMA for the Six Counties. Will the Taoiseach indicate what format that engagement will take? What are the expectations of the impact of the advent of NAMA north of the Border? With legislation to come here, will due consideration be given to any impact north of the Border in the legislative preparation here? Will legislation be required in the Executive to mirror that effect and has this been considered? Can the Taoiseach give us some sense of the position?
Finally, it is appropriate that we would record a united rejection of the outrageous treatment meted out to non-national residents within the Belfast area recently. I speak specifically of people from the Roma and Romanian backgrounds who have been subjected to very severe attacks, a significant number of whom have left our shores as a result. Can we unite in agreed rejection of these outrageous racist acts?
The Deputy is sweeping with a broad brush. I call the Taoiseach.
I do not have the technical detail on the A5 to hand. The National Roads Authority is more specifically the body involved as these are technical engineering issues. I know issues are being raised by Deputies in the area and I can get an update in this regard.
On the question of what will happen in Middletown, I ask the Deputy to accept I will have the Minister set out the up-to-date position. I cannot recommit to anything unless and until we see in what way that project will evolve. There were certain ideas at the time and discussions had taken place as to how Middletown would be used in the context of the provision of services in this area, and this is still under consideration. We have to work this out in detail as we go along but it is best that the Deputy would await a considered reply from the Minister as to the accurate, up-to-date position.
The question of the agreement to meet, made between the Minister for Finance and the Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, arose from a briefing by the Minister for Finance at a meeting in respect of the National Asset Management Agency and the role it will play in helping us to restructure the banking industry, provide long-term liquidity and more easily accessible credit to Irish business generally by way of bringing distressed assets under the aegis of the agency. The Northern Ireland First Minister would have referred to the role the Executive has played in respect of identifying assets for possible disposal for use subsequently in the social housing area within Northern Ireland in terms of a policy objective it has identified. The need for practical co-operation is emphasised when one considers the two policy objectives we have.
All the activities of the National Asset Management Agency will be based upon purely commercial criteria. It is not envisaged that there would be a fire sale of all assets that come under the aegis of the agency. The idea is to put those on a longer time horizon such that we can recover value in respect of those assets the current value of which, because of present market failure or depression, does not correspond to the acquired value of the assets in recent times. The reason behind the asset management agency concept in the first place is the need to find a longer time horizon in which to recover asset values in a way that could not be carried by private financial institutions and which must meet current market disciplines and at the same time make sufficient provision for bad or doubtful debt in the future. Without going into the detail, that was all mentioned and explained by the Minister for Finance. The meeting of finance ministers was to ensure the provision of a briefing by the Minister for Finance on a confidential basis for his colleagues in the North, that they understand and know not only the concept but the way in which the proposal would be implemented and applied, to keep them apprised of the issue so that they can understand in terms of their policy approach and know what it is that we must achieve as well.
Assets are located in Northern Ireland that would come under the aegis of the National Asset Management Agency and the Executive would like to be apprised generally about the impact or otherwise the proposal would have on the property market as it evolves in the coming months and years as well. It is entirely legitimate and a meeting and briefing between Ministers is an obvious way of clearing lines in respect of how things will progress.
On the issue of racism, we all deplore any acts of violence or intimidation against anyone, particularly where there are racist overtones. It was pointed out at the meeting on the Northern Ireland Executive side that while that matter, rightly, received a good deal of press and media coverage, including the utter condemnation by everyone against the acts, it was also highlighted that there are many good things happening within communities in efforts to integrate non-nationals into Northern Ireland society and that this should be highlighted to enable a full and rounded picture to emerge. Without in any way justifying unacceptable racist activities or occurrences there are many things taking place which are a good deal more positive in nature which should be emphasised.
I refer to the briefing by the Minister for Finance in respect of NAMA. Remarks are attributed to the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, in respect of NAMA and the way in which it would operate. He indicated his fears that assets, which would be presumably covered by Irish banks and, therefore, part of the NAMA process, might be put for sale on the market and sold off cheaply. His major concern appeared to be that this would impact negatively on the Northern Ireland property market. I refer to the report in The Irish Times by Deaglán de Bréadún. Is the impact on the property market in Northern Ireland now a factor in respect of NAMA valuations? Judging by what the First Minister was saying, they would like to keep asset valuations high so as to prevent the property market dipping down further. This would imply that the taxpayer in the South would have to take those assets at an artificially high valuation because it does not sound like the value would be marked to market or anywhere near it.
Is this issue of the Northern Ireland property market now a major factor in the approach to the valuation of assets in the NAMA process? This would appear to be so from the report in The Irish Times. I am surprised that the discussion centred around the real economy and Main Street, rather than the property market and jobs because it is the restoration of jobs, sustaining employment and battling unemployment that I would have thought was the most important issue for Ireland, North and South. Are the comments attributed to the First Minister, Mr. Robinson——
I must allow Deputy Kenny and there are only three or four minutes remaining.
——fair and do they reflect the discussion?
I welcome the announcement by the UDA and the UVF of demilitarisation and the decommissioning of weapons. I wish to ask the Taoiseach a few straightforward questions. The Minister for Finance said that he made a mistake in increasing the VAT rate. The real issue in respect of the difference in costs between the North and South was in the main due to the differential between sterling and the euro. The perception among people in the Republic was that because of a reduction in VAT in Britain and Northern Ireland and an increase here, there were real bargains to be had and more than €700 million was spent north of the Border. Was this matter discussed yesterday and was there any indication that the Minister for Finance intends to reverse that decision?
In respect of climate change and energy, what is the position regarding the North-South interconnector? There is a problem from the midlands to the Border. Was this matter discussed between the Government and its Northern Ireland counterparts?
Was there any discussion about the appointment of the North-South Parliamentary Body which is part of the Good Friday Agreement structure? It is high time there was a move on this. People in all parties here have an interest in seeing that we move on to build more completely on the Good Friday Agreement. Was there any discussion or timescale agreed?
In April last year the Taoiseach indicated that it would be in order for companies operating in the IFSC to set up offices in the North to deal with a skills shortage in the Republic. He estimated at that time there could have been 3,000 to 5,000 jobs created in Northern Ireland. Was this matter discussed at the ministerial meeting yesterday? Has there been any progress on this matter or has it been decided that as a result of the conditions applying now it might be better and in everyone's interest to have as many jobs as possible created here? Was this discussed?
The general economic situation was discussed and it was in this context that the issue of NAMA arose. It was part of the discussion. I emphasise to Deputy Burton that her surmise regarding comments attributed to the First Minster is not correct. I am sure the First Minister was accurately quoted about his various concerns and I explained in a previous reply the context in which those concerns were expressed. I also made the point that commercial criteria apply in respect of the National Asset Management Agency. There is no differentiated approach with regard to how assets are valued. The question of valuation methodology must be approved by the European Commission in any event so there is no question of that arising at all. These matters will all be dealt with consistently. They are taken on a case by case basis but it is not a question of the National Asset Management Agency acquiring assets for the purpose of immediate disposal. It is a question of providing, in the main, a longer time horizon to allow asset value recover rather than immediate disposal of assets. That is the reason a briefing by the Minister for Finance with his counterpart in the North would be useful in that respect so that they will have a full understanding and view of what is involved and get a detailed assessment from us. It was in that context that the meeting was arranged. There is no change from what is envisaged.
Regarding what Deputy Kenny said, the question of volatility of exchange rates between sterling and the euro is not something under the direct control of this Government. The whole purpose of the North-South agenda is the long-term issues. In what way can we provide building blocks that will make the island economy more competitive? In what way can we bring the island economy to the fore? In what way can we identify practical areas of co-operation across a range of areas, not only those set out originally? The whole idea of the interaction at ministerial level and in plenary format is as a confidence building measure so that both sides see the value of that co-operation and the need to explore its potential. In particular, in the context of the changed economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, a strong point I will be making is that now, more than ever, the need for close interaction and co-operation between North and South is important in the context of hard-pressed taxpayers in both jurisdictions providing moneys and trying to maintain service levels of public services. At the same time there is a need to see in what way we can co-operate and avoid duplication. This is an agenda that is all the more important and emphatic now than was the case before this, indeed more so.
In the context of working through financial services, the purpose in that regard was the mix and match approach. There are parts of the financial services industry in which we are well established, and there are very well paid jobs available here. There are other aspects of the financial services industry where we are no longer competitive but in which the Northern Ireland area might be competitive. Why would we not work together to try to ensure we maximise the island-wide approach? That is what co-operation is about.
In terms of increasing the cake and making sure it is available, we know that since autumn of last year an earthquake has taken place in the financial services industry, which obviously might delay the original hopes of that programme but it is nonetheless valid. Avoiding partitionist thinking is important in this issue.
